On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 10:35:13PM +0100, Dennis J. wrote: > On 12/08/2008 09:32 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Patrice Dumas wrote: >>> If there is none, it uses /bin/vi. In fact I have sone a bit of >>> investigations and it uses, in pathnames.h _PATH_VI which is defined in >>> /usr/invlude/paths.h. >>> >>> So it is a missing dependency, in my opinion. >> >> No it's not. People may want to use an actually usable editor and not have >> their system polluted with this relict of history. >> >> I guess I should file bugs against cvs, sudo and fcron which all have >> unnecessary Requires on vim-minimal. > > That's probably a good idea not so much because vi is a "relic of > history" but simply because it's not a good idea to require a specific > editor simply because the package contains a config file. Virtually every > app out there contains config files so imagine if all of them depended on > the editor of the package maintainers choice. If at all then the > dependency should be a virtual one so the user can choose to install > his/her prefered editor. Those application have vi as a fallback default because they call it somehow (at least fcrontab in fcron). I guess it is also the case of sudoedit, and I also guess that it is the fallback for cvs commit messages too. So those packages doesn't 'require a specific editor simply because the package contains a config file'. They call, at runtime an editor specified by the EDITOR env variable and fallback to vi. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
